5 ms·

on what hypothetical grounds would you be more meaningfully able to sue the american maker of a self-hosted statistical language model that you select your own

on what hypothetical grounds would you be more meaningfully able to sue the american maker of a self-hosted statistical language model that you select your own runtime sampling parameters for after random subtle security vulnerabilities came out the other side when you asked it for very secure code? put another way, how do you propose to tell this subtle nefarious chinese sabotage you baselessly imply to be commonplace from the very real limitations of this technology in the first place?

fragmede 11mo ago
This paper may be of interest to you: https://arxiv.org/html/2504.15867v1 https://arxiv.org/html/2504.15867v1
- nagaiaida 11mo ago
  the mechanism of action for that attack appears to be reading from poisoned snippets on stackoverflow or a similar site, which to my mind is an excellent example of why it seems like it would be difficult to retroactively pin "insecure code came out of my model" on the evil communist base weights of the model in question
kriops 11mo ago
[flagged]
- coliveira 11mo ago
  Competitor != adversary. It is US warmongering ideology that tries to equate these concepts.
  - kriops 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - jrflowers 11mo ago
      Isn’t every country by definition a “local monopoly on force”? Sweden and Norway have their own militaries and police forces and neither would take kindly to an invasion from the other. By your definition this makes them adversaries or enemies.
      - kriops 11mo ago
        Exactly. I am Norwegian myself, and I don’t even know how many wars we have had with Sweden and Denmark. If you are getting at the fact that it is sometimes beneficial for adversaries to collaborate (e.g., the prisoner dilemma) then I agree. And indeed, both Norway and Sweden would be completely lost if they declared war on the other tomorrow. But it doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the relationship.
    - tomhow 11mo ago
      Several of your comments in this subthread have broken the guidelines. The guidelines ask us not to use HN for political/ideological battle and to "assume good faith". They ask us to "be kind", "eschew flamebait", and ask that "comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less as a topic gets more divisive." The topic itself, like any topic, is fine to discuss here, but care must be taken to discuss it in a de-escalatory way. The words you use and the way you use them matter. Most importantly, it's not OK to write "it is however entirely reasonable to assume that the comment I replied to was made entirely in bad faith". That's a swipe and a personal attack that, as the guidelines ask, should be edited out. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - kriops 11mo ago
        Can you, by any chance, delete my account? I have tried to do so before but it is not possible through the GUI. And I see you are associated with HN. Other than that let's be very clear that there was no personal attack. You left out the part where I explain why I think the comment was made in bad faith. I.e. the part that makes it not a personal attack. And a part which I, upon request, elaborated on in the same comment tree. As you said: Words matter.
  - delaminator 11mo ago
    you clearly haven't been paying attention remember when the US bugged EU leader's phones, including Merkel from 2002 to 2013?
    - tomhow 11mo ago
      > you clearly haven't been paying attention Please don't be snarky or condescending in HN comments. From the guidelines: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - tomhow 11mo ago
    > It is US warmongering ideology that tries to equate these concepts Please don't engage in political battle here, including singling out a country for this kind of criticism. No matter how right you are or feel you are, it inevitably leads to geopolitical flamewar, which has happened here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- nagaiaida 11mo ago
  sorry, is your contention here "spurious accusations don't require evidence when aimed at designated state enemies"? because it feels uncharitably rude to infer that's what you meant to say here, but i struggle to parse this in a different way where you say something more reasonable.
  - kriops 11mo ago
    [flagged]
- saubeidl 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - kriops 11mo ago
    The EU isn’t a state and has no military or police. As such the EU’s existence is an anecdotal answer to your question in itself: Reliance on (in particular maritime) trade. And yes, China also benefits from trade, but as opposed to democracies (in which the general populace to a greater extent are keys to power) the state does not require trade to sustain itself in the same way. This makes EU countries more reliable partners for cooperation than China. The same goes for the US from an European perspective, and even with everything going on over there it is still not remotely close. All states are fundamentally adversaries because they have conflicting interests. To your point however, adversaries do indeed cooperate all the time.

fragmede 11mo ago

This paper may be of interest to you: https://arxiv.org/html/2504.15867v1 https://arxiv.org/html/2504.15867v1

nagaiaida 11mo ago
the mechanism of action for that attack appears to be reading from poisoned snippets on stackoverflow or a similar site, which to my mind is an excellent example of why it seems like it would be difficult to retroactively pin "insecure code came out of my model" on the evil communist base weights of the model in question

kriops 11mo ago

[flagged]

coliveira 11mo ago
Competitor != adversary. It is US warmongering ideology that tries to equate these concepts.
- kriops 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - jrflowers 11mo ago
    Isn’t every country by definition a “local monopoly on force”? Sweden and Norway have their own militaries and police forces and neither would take kindly to an invasion from the other. By your definition this makes them adversaries or enemies.
    - kriops 11mo ago
      Exactly. I am Norwegian myself, and I don’t even know how many wars we have had with Sweden and Denmark. If you are getting at the fact that it is sometimes beneficial for adversaries to collaborate (e.g., the prisoner dilemma) then I agree. And indeed, both Norway and Sweden would be completely lost if they declared war on the other tomorrow. But it doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the relationship.
  - tomhow 11mo ago
    Several of your comments in this subthread have broken the guidelines. The guidelines ask us not to use HN for political/ideological battle and to "assume good faith". They ask us to "be kind", "eschew flamebait", and ask that "comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less as a topic gets more divisive." The topic itself, like any topic, is fine to discuss here, but care must be taken to discuss it in a de-escalatory way. The words you use and the way you use them matter. Most importantly, it's not OK to write "it is however entirely reasonable to assume that the comment I replied to was made entirely in bad faith". That's a swipe and a personal attack that, as the guidelines ask, should be edited out. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - kriops 11mo ago
      Can you, by any chance, delete my account? I have tried to do so before but it is not possible through the GUI. And I see you are associated with HN. Other than that let's be very clear that there was no personal attack. You left out the part where I explain why I think the comment was made in bad faith. I.e. the part that makes it not a personal attack. And a part which I, upon request, elaborated on in the same comment tree. As you said: Words matter.
- delaminator 11mo ago
  you clearly haven't been paying attention remember when the US bugged EU leader's phones, including Merkel from 2002 to 2013?
  - tomhow 11mo ago
    > you clearly haven't been paying attention Please don't be snarky or condescending in HN comments. From the guidelines: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- tomhow 11mo ago
  > It is US warmongering ideology that tries to equate these concepts Please don't engage in political battle here, including singling out a country for this kind of criticism. No matter how right you are or feel you are, it inevitably leads to geopolitical flamewar, which has happened here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
nagaiaida 11mo ago
sorry, is your contention here "spurious accusations don't require evidence when aimed at designated state enemies"? because it feels uncharitably rude to infer that's what you meant to say here, but i struggle to parse this in a different way where you say something more reasonable.
- kriops 11mo ago
  [flagged]
saubeidl 11mo ago
[flagged]
- kriops 11mo ago
  The EU isn’t a state and has no military or police. As such the EU’s existence is an anecdotal answer to your question in itself: Reliance on (in particular maritime) trade. And yes, China also benefits from trade, but as opposed to democracies (in which the general populace to a greater extent are keys to power) the state does not require trade to sustain itself in the same way. This makes EU countries more reliable partners for cooperation than China. The same goes for the US from an European perspective, and even with everything going on over there it is still not remotely close. All states are fundamentally adversaries because they have conflicting interests. To your point however, adversaries do indeed cooperate all the time.